tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 13, 2014 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, ashington, d.c., january 13, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable thomas e. petri to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: "morning drive." -- pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the
chair recognizes members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leader for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, for five minutes. mr. doggett: thank you, mr. speaker. next monday when our country honors an apostle of nonviolence, dr. martin luther ing jr., iran will begin reducing its nuclear stockpile. this important action is part of an international agreement to begin implementing the interim joint plan of action that was announced in november. hope for a nonviolent resolution of our conflict with
iran will appropriately advance on a day that honors nonviolence. some in congress have been unwilling to accept these negotiations or to acknowledge that the administration has been successful in uniting other countries around the world in enforcing sanctions against iran. indeed, what appears to have been largely a partisan outcry, some of our colleagues condemn the november agreement late on the saturday night when it was announced without knowing what was in it other than that president obama had approved it. as a member myself who has consistently voted here to impose tough economic sanctions on iran, i believe that these sanctions have worked. the choice is not between sanctions and no sanctions, it is between recognizing that our sanctions have the potential to realize our important goals and
not give up on them without even really trying. the iranians are well aware that this congress can act almost instantly to add even more stringent sanctions if they waiver from diplomacy. can we trust the current iranian regime? of course not. that's why the painstaking task of varyfying every operational detail of -- verifying every operational detail of everything is so important. if done with the thoroughness required, this is a task that may well take more than six months, but as negotiations for a permanent agreement get under way, we will have new regular inspections to verify compliance, something we have not had in the past. to prevent a nuclear-armed iran and to ensure the safety of our families and families around measurable,
verifiable negotiated agreement is the wiser course over the unknowing risk of war. those who would intrude on those fragile negotiations now only increase the danger of iran becoming a nuclear armed power. they would undermine the international coalition that has enforced the existing sanctions and they would empower those hard lined ayatollahs, giving them the pretext to stop progress -- giving that to the very people who reject any cooperation and regularly demand death to america and death to israel. congress must not impede the diplomatic alternative to war. ultimately, that diplomacy may not be successful. it may not achieve a final verifiable agreement, but we should make every reasonable effort toward that end. there are no more important issues considered in this capitol building, undertaken by
this congress than the questions of war and peace. just as i do not trust iran, i do not trust war as the best way to prevent a nuclear iran, and war is the true alternative authored by those here who would interfere or limit these negotiations. starting a war in iraq cost us so very dearly, and it did not make us safer. let's not repeat that deadly mistake. congress should commend secretary of state john kerry, undersecretary wendy sherman and president barack obama for their leader through tough, persistent diplomacy, through the wise use of american power. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess
eastern. >> nancy reagan was the first lady to address united nations. >> to my young friends out there, life can be great. but not when you can't see it. open your eyes to life to see it in the bid that covers -- in the vivid colors that god gave us and enjoy life to the fullest and make it count. say yes to your life and when it comes to drugs and alcohol, just say no. ,> first lady nancy reagan tonight at 9:00 eastern. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. >> we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and
conferences. and offering complete gavel-to- gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service to private industry. where c-span, created by the cable tv industry 30 years ago. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> kissinger low brand continued her push for -- senator kirsten illibrand -- the senator spoke on a daylong conference on social mobility hosted by the brookings institution. the term refers to the degree from which people are able to classrom working status -- working staff -- working class status.
>> good morning, everyone. i hope everyone is feeling bright and cheery this morning. it is a sunny and reasonable temperature. centercodirector of the for children's families here at brookings. group ofnvited a experts from around the country for the firstay annual summit on social mobility in the united states. organized by my colleague, richard reeves. have so manyted to wonderful experts here to talk about this issue all day. to put socialg mobility on the agenda and figure out what to do about it, we are going to need help from
people in public life. offer thatmendous tremendous honor to have someone with us today to help us address these questions. senator jill brand was first appointed after hillary clinton vacated her post. she was elected on her own in 2010 for a six-year term. worked on all kinds of issues. i read her bio, looked at her website, and there are so many there that i cannot begin to list them all. i think she is best known for her advocacy of ending sexual must -- ending sexual assault in the military. harry reid, very
uncharacteristically, once referred to her as the hottest member of the democratic caucus. i cannot imagine senator reid saying that the evidently he did. young mother of two children and only 20 women in the senate, she has been specially focused on the needs of women and families. she believes the women's movement has stalled out and wants to see at least half of all senate seats and half of all governorships be women in the future. if i want to endorse that goal and add to one that i am sure , a woman agree with president of the united states. it is with great pleasure we welcome you to brookings and i am sure i speak for all of us when i say we are looking
forward to your remarks. [applause] >> thank you for your leadership and for hosting today's for him. i think this will be an interesting conversation. i want to thank the brookings institute for bringing us all together to talk about a topic that is vital to the future of this country and talk about some fresh ideas, to give more children and working families the opportunity they need to achieve their potential. week marked the 50th anniversary of president lyndon johnson's declaration of an all- out war against poverty, ushering in a new -- no matter the circumstances they were born into or whatever kind of hand that life dealt you. week -- they had a
chance to do one simple act to live up to that promise, by extending a lifeline to 1.3 million jobless americans. americans, million who, through no fault of their own, want to work. they were denied this lifeline, this basic lifeline to keep them afloat during tough economic times. democrats and republicans may have honest estimate -- honest disagreements on ways to create jobs. we should be able to agree on a basic core principle. we should never leave anyone out in the cold. this is exactly what happens
here in washington. it is the same old political game. it would have us all believe that they are just cutting fraud , ending free rides on the taxpayer dime. when you are cutting food stamps, you are just taking food off the table of families in this country, taking food out of the mouths of hungry children, taking them away from seniors on , to veterans who gave their lives for this country and everything for this country during our time of need. that is who you are taking food away from.
it makes me angry because all we hear from the other side is that government assistance is somehow scamming the system. -- neveret a lady's met a lazy child who was hungry. i never met a man or woman who was on unemployment benefits or who needs food stamps, who wants to be there. they don't want to be there. they would refer to be working, providing for the children, feeding their children. mother whosemet a from -- were well fed and aa loss of confidence loss of dignity. theyis all the motivation need to work as hard as they can to find a new job.
that is what the 1.3 million americans are fighting for, a job, an opportunity to work. assistance is meant for them and their safety net. politicians callously attack those receiving government assistance. they are not attacking the nameless and faceless. kids, ourttacking our seniors, our veterans who have given so much. we need to do much better. it is not who we are as americans. together and this we have to create the federal policy that reflects those core values. i know we will hear a lot of politicians finding new census of compassion and empathy over the weeks and months ahead.
we see policies that trade-off. if you look at the policies, they will got head start. you will see policies that were designed to cut medicaid. is medicaid? it is access to health care that need it most. of ais not the priority nation that fulfills the more obligation to those that need these are not the policies on a nation that do -- aredren of families that hungry or learning need a
slogan. we should at least agree on this, let's do more than just find the right way to talk about it. let's look at democrats and republicans for policies that focus on their core share values. i've have traveled across my state of new york. parents are working their hardest to get by. reality is things seem to working against him. the fact is income inequality is at record levels. affordability is slipping away. seniors are working longer hours for less money. the real value of workers wages is on the decline.
as a result families are having a tough time. the american dream hasn't changed. dream of getting an education, providing our families, and making sure we have money for retirement. the rules have changed. the world has changed and our economy has changed. most importantly our american family and the state of the american workforce has changed significantly. that is where i see the greatest potential. an opportunity for those who are fighting to make it there. the new faces are now women.
women are increasingly the new family breadwinner. women are the primary wage earners for a growing share across america. families relied on their wages to provide for the kids. is 40%, 40% of wage earners in america. make those choices at the kitchen table and their kids. you would not know that looking at the policy today. they are fundamentally stuck in the past. if congress and state capitals across the country simply have failed to keep pace with the new economy and the modern american workplace.
to creating a growing economy and the key to an american middle class to thrive in the 21st century is women. shot, women will be the ones who ignite this economy and lead america to a revival of middle-class. it is a set of five asic principles that will modernize the american workplace and policies to give them a chance to earn their way and get ahead in the economy. building our american middle keeping -- on earning a paycheck. for anyone who has had a new member orck family
dying a family member who needs care around the clock, you know they need to make a choice for providing at their family or staying in the workplace or caring for your loved one at home. this is a choice that is happening every single day. more often than not it is the women who choose to leave the workforce and care for that family member. when they do they will earn less income. they will miss out on raises and promotions. it risks the stability of their own families.
democrats and republicans should be able to agree, america's strongest asset is our people. the family medical leave act basically provides for unpaid leave. only about half of our workforce actually abides by unpaid leave. many more cannot afford to take the time off. should do muchd more to support these workers. we would create a self funded paid medical insurance program. dime to theadd one deficit. based on state models, it works on establishing an independent trust fund supported by both the
employee and the employer. it is basically an earned benefit that will make a paid leave available to every working american, no matter how big your company is, whether you are part or full-time. copy -- the a cover cost is about a cup of coffee per week. with that decision perhaps affecting the fate of her entire career. anyone of us need to care for an ill or dying family member in we should not have to sacrifice our job or do -- no reason why democrats and republicans cannot come
together and supported again today. give you a real-life example to show why this is something he should be able to support. for those who desperately want to reduce the roles of those on government assistance, this is a really great way to do it. is ae an employee, she single mom working as a waitress. she was working 40 hours a week, anding $2.19 per hour choose able to bring home $24,000 per year, a few thousand dollars above the poverty line. she had no health care benefits by her employee when she got pregnant. she enrolled in medicaid. when she had her baby she knew she cannot afford the bill -- the hospital bill to deliver her baby. she had to quit her job. because she was able to be beyond medicaid that was able to cover her expenses. because her employer gave her no no paid leave,nd
she wasn't able to have her time with her infant at home. job, sheo quit her enrolled in food stamps. she was working for time -- working full-time and basically on the edge of property. if she had paid family medical leave in that job she could have had the time she needed and would have had the time that protected her and her family. things beyondk on simply raising the middle wage. -- raising the minimum wage. -- did you know that know that 64% of minimum-wage earners are women. if you are working 40 hours per week on our minimum wage, you $15,000 per year.
for you reward work and if you work hard every day you will make it to the middle class? that is not true. working 40 hours per week on the minimum wage, you are earning $290 per week. can you imagine what it would be like to live on $290 per week? i have an example for you. her name is lucilla from union station. day,as never had a sick never had indications day, she has no benefits. for 20 the same job years and still be earning a 75 per hour with no benefits ash earning $8.75 per hour with no be earning and still $8.75 per hour with no benefits. hard-working people like her are not looking for a handout. they just want to work hard everyday and be able to provide
for their family and have some hope, some glimmer that they too the americano see dream. she is one step closer to getting out of poverty and moving into the middle class. raising the minimum wage would help. many women with children, just like lucilla. millions of mothers would be able to do more to support their families and put that money right back into the economy. raising the minimum wage is good for business. hourcreases at $10.10 per by up to $33 billion over the course of three years. it increases spending on
household goods, food, things family needs. added activity we can create 140,000 new jobs. the next issue i feel passionate is understanding the need for affordable childcare. women are going back to work sooner after having a child, creating a much greater demand for affordable childcare. is aboutof childcare $6,700 per year, much more for an infant. just about the same amount an average family spends on groceries. if you cannot afford child care and don't have a family option, the choice you are left with is to leave your job and get home and care for your children. let's say the average between an infant and child is about $10,000 per year.
how are you going to afford childcare? from zero to five, you have no options. there are no affordable options. imagine what you do is a single mom. 17 million of those minimum-wage earners are women. a lot of them are single mothers. what do you do? you look for informal care, you look for your mother, perhaps. or a lady down the street or someone in your building. what happens if your informal caregiver is sick? you miss work. what happens if you miss work, you have no sick days. won't be promoted. you lose out on economic potential and economic opportunities because there is no affordable day care option. just as important, we need universal three -- universal pre-k. high quality early learning leads to strong cognitive
language and development. key skills that every child in america needs. any childhood expert will say this fact. windowst five years is a we have to give them those get -- those essential skills for success. for millions struggling, this is a chance they are never going to get. the black that you live on should not determine the success of the life you will have to that is why we need to make these investments today to bring affordable and quality childhood pre-k to everyone in america. this gives every child the chance they deserve to start out .trong every dollar you generate in childhood education general benefits throughout
his life. that is an nih statistic. it is important for our overall economy today. when children get access to pre- k, it means more working mothers .an to stay in the workforce that is it for the whole economy. i agree that we have to do more to get our deficit under control. every budget that we write is about choices. they are about our priorities and who we fight for. frankly, in a global economy, when we are competing with countries and markets in every corner of the world we cannot afford to lose a step. we risk a future engineer, scientist, or doctor that can make the next big breakthrough that changes the world and ignites a new economic engine. a strong early childhood education is one of the best things we can do to propel more
kids out of poverty on a sturdy path to a brighter future. we should invest in our children. the last piece of mike pozo is obvious, equal pay for equal work -- of my proposal is obvious, equal pay for equal work. that continues be broken to this day. women are a growing share of the primary household earners but to the statement our out toward -- men are out-earning a wages. on average a woman earns $.77 on every dollar a man earns. people earn aan less. ahead if family get
they're shortchanged every month? we want to have a growing economy and a secure middle class and chance for more families to get ahead. it is really that simple. it is a huge economic engine. if you have just paid a dollar for dollar, you could have phrased the u.s. gdp by four percent. thing tot the right do. poverty into the war on with the stacks against those in the country, let's commit ourselves to commit ourselves with greater resolve to living up to what the american dream was always meant to be. it is a dream that makes our country the land of opportunity. a dream that says it does not matter from where you start, hard work pays off. you can get to the american dream and earn your future. long, hasat, for too
been out of reach for too many people. let's do what we can do to create new opportunities for those who need it most and change the course of american middle-class. without a doubt it will be women who lead the way. only when every american man and woman gets a fair shot that they deserve to achieve their full potential, will america a full -- will america be able to achieve hers. thank you. [applause]
>> that was quite an exhilarating challenge to all of us and i think if i can -- i thinkour agenda these are all really important issues and i want to relate them back to the theme of what we will be discussing here all day. povertyioned the war on and the fact we are celebrating an anniversary now. everybody is talking about that. she and her colleagues have -- i
found it very interesting because it shows that although many people on the right said the war on , the study shows the war on poverty actually reduced poverty appropriately measured or 11ething like 10 % debt by 10 or 11 percentage points. something like 10 or 11 percentage points. there were people at the bottom not doing well. we did not do as good a job at changing the labor market, helping people to achieve middle-class status through their own efforts and becoming self-sufficient. i think there are some elements that speak to that and some that
are just catching people, helping them when they are down. unemployment insurance as part of the safety net. bk programs are part of helping people climb the ladder. debate about pre-k because there was a study, the head start program, that shows it wasn't having the kinds of effects that we earlier hoped it hadn't. of my question coming off of -- obviously you are dealing with legislative issues in the hearing as you should. worry those of us out here in think tank land that up there on capitol hill there isn't quite enough long-term , would he think we need to do to be self-sufficient?
what would be your top priorities their? important the most change is recognizing the face of the workforce. most of our policies were set in the 50s and 70s when come if you had an american block and were 10 homes on it, seven or eight -- the husband would go to work in the web would stay at home. five of those houses have two parents working, three have a single mom working, and only to have a parent staying at home with the child. so you have a workplace that does not have the flex ability to accommodate, your constantly going to be undervaluing the performance of your workers. if you want the full potential of your workforce, meaning women
who are primary caregivers, you need to create a more family- friendly workplace policy. that means something as simply as equal pay for equal work. something like paid family medical leave -- you don't have woman off ramping every time there is a family emergency, which is constantly happening. getting thes never chance to earn more, put back more the economy. a degree of our workforce in new york state is woman. you are really shortchanging an economic engine in your work first -- workforce. you need that flexibility. that's five years of that workers life for every child that they have. she will not be in the workplace at full-time or not have her highest earning potential.
it's a huge problem. has been an enormous transformation, the fact that women have moved into the workforce. hannah rosen wrote this book called, "the end of men. coke -- "the end of men." the reason we have so many single parents is because the men can no longer make enough money to get married and supportive family. -- and support a family. is that also a concern? arguing for women's rights to domb the ladder, what we about that? >> they still earning a dollar.
the dollar.ollar on be primaryo caregivers. men need to flex ability when their mother or father is dying. that is why paid family medical leave applies to men and women. if you have more family-friendly policies that both parents would be able to take advantage and be able to be there when needs arrive. for all those families who are single-parent families, they need that flexibility. neutralre gender- policies but they will help more women than men because more often than not it is the woman who has to sideline her career for family. there are many men in the same situation. open this up to the audience to ask a couple of questions here. please see your name and your affiliation, if you would. on the isle there.
>> i'm with an organization for early childhood education. robertd to point out samuels column in today's " points outpost poverty issues. not to makeion you a dichotomy between child care and early education. i don't think you were but quite often people do. they see one is quite different from the other when in fact all programs from six weeks to six years our educational. children are learning all the time. they don't start when the go to school. and they both provide care. k is affordablee- i know the- is an --
early childhood education they received was tremendous from the -- they were it was $10,000 per year. before the ability was a huge problem. there were too many moms who cannot use the daycare that was available to federal workers because they cannot afford it. to be able told go to a day care of the highest quality that i was given. from infant care straight onto when they're ready to enter pre- k. that is why affordability is equally important to universality. because we question are running out of time. >> i usually have a really loud voice.
welcome to brookings. veryu know i am sympathetic to this agenda that you put forward. curious why this has not taken hold more within the democratic party or maybe it will. some of the to me proposals were obviously consensus proposals, like the minimum wage. the package speaks to a lot of different aspects. are we going to see more action not just from women members but hearty white on these kinds of things? >> i think so. i think we have a particular sensitivity to these issues. i see what benefit my children gets from daycare. i know i cannot have done my job well without the flexibility i was given for paid family medical leave. i know the difference it made
for me personally. if i speak very passionately about them and i know what opportunities are being given to those who do not have an. heart andk from the from real-life experience. that is one of the reasons these issues are coming to the floor now. the democratic and republican party will be able to grab a hold of these issues as thatenerational issues speaks to what the changes are that we need to make to create an economic engine and actually make a middle class that can drive. i do see application from a love places. gave a veryt significant speech just a few weeks or month ago. see do aeaker pollo good president with a number of members a few months ago. i think these issues are going to be continued to be talked about and i will do everything i
can to make sure i talk about them lots of people begin to say that is a good idea. it could have a real good economic impact that make a difference. >> we really wish you well on this agenda. please join me in thanking the senator. [applause] >> all right and will be speaking at the brookings institution here in washington speaking at will be
the brookings institution here in washington dc. at forthave that live eastern on c-span. house members are taking a break before returning at 2 p.m. eastern. legislative work will get underway at five. that will include one that would include a piece core memorial. -- peace corps memorial. george miller has announced that he will retire at the end of the term after serving four decades in congress. 11thpresents california's district. nancy pelosi released a statement on his departure, which says, "capitol hill and california are filled with democrats and republicans alike who have insured working with george miller and who deeply respect him because of his excitement for the legislative process is infections and undiluted. also the associated press
hasrting, president obama called a meeting on wednesday with white house democrats. so be a chance for them to some about priorities for 2014. join us is later for -- later for a discussion on early childhood health care. it will be able to watch live at 2:30 eastern on our companion network, c-span3. reagan was the first lady to address the united nations and first addressed the nation in a joint appearance with the president. >> to my young friends out there, life can be great, but not when you cannot see it. open your eyes to life and see it in the vivid colors that god gave us. a precious gift to his children. when it comes to drugs and
alcohol, just say no. reagan asady nancy "first ladies: influence and image" returns. >> our conversation now on the way forward for the u.s. in afghanistan, from this morning's "washington journal." >> at the table is ricardo, here to talk about health care spending and health care costs. good morning. there are some trends we wanted to talk about. health care spending went down as a percentage of the u.s. economy. can you explain what is going on with health care costs? >> it seems that the last few years there has been a
moderation or an easing of the rate of increase in health care costs. it has filled about 18% of the economy. rising as fast as it used to. rising in line with the overall quote the economy, which, if you think of it, is still a lot of money that the u.s. spends on health care but it becomes more affordable when that bill is rising more or less in line with the quotes that the economy has posted as opposed to alec -- with the quotes of the economy as opposed to galloping ahead. contribute ine factors to a more steady increase, a more steady growth rate? them a lot of people think it is basically spillover or hangover
affect from the economic recession. us,ust took so much out of so much of a out of the country the people were reluctant to spend on anything, even health care. some are saying the recession is over and some of this has to be treated to the focus on controlling health care costs, reducing health care costs. you see it from employers and from the government. >> we invite the viewers to phone in with questions from -- questions for our guest. call this number if you are uninsured, you are we love to hear about your experiences with insurance or health care. of course the affordable care act, we have plenty of time for calls.
i want to dig into the numbers more with our guest. from the cms report that came out here are some of the details, u.s. health care spending in 2012, the growth rate was 3.7%. the average cost for debt per person was 8000, 900, and $15. -- 8900 and $15 -- $8,915. >> most people say, i do not spend that much or not that much was spent on the last year. what happens is most of the spending is for a small proportion of us who wind up getting really sick every year. when you see that average, it really does not give you a picture of how health care spending works. most of the cost go for the sickest people in any year.
the percentage rate, the growth, was slower than the growth of the economy. actually, health-care costs as a share of the overall pie shrank a little bit last year. that is unusual. host: there is another slide i want to point out because it illustrates what we are talking about with health care costs. 2012 down a little bit from 2010, down from 4.7% in 2008, and then back in 2002, 9.7, the highest growth rate in health care. can you give us more of a history lesson in what these trends are all about and what else might be causing them? go back to 2012 if you could first. why almost 10%? guest: way back then. you know, you have got to look in terms of the economy and
also, you have to look at what is coming online in terms of new drugs, new types of treatments, and it is a complicated picture. not easily boiled down to one or two simple factors. certainly, the economy plays a big part in it. also, a big driver is spending on drugs, spending on new medical procedures, things of that nature. host: let's flood the affordable care act into all of this, and
the slowing of the rise of the health-care cost. the president filed this report. tell us more about why he is saying that? what is his rationale? guest: the experts say the affordable care act has had a minimal impact on these trends and it is think of it, the affordable care act itself, major parts of it, are just starting to roll out now. the big coverage expansion is this year. some of the sharper cost control measures are still in the
future, although medicare cuts have started. the administration and supporters of the president say it is an overall tone they have set, that is driving the system, driving doctors, hospitals, insurers, to look for greater efficiency in the system. host: the first call for our guest is from david, cincinnati. the line for uninsured. tell us your situation. caller: i would proposed a tort reform. keep and award damages according to the cost of the health care and the loss of income. i would also like to have the government go after trial lawyers and have them pay back the excess amount. pay back the excess amount of money awarded for years. host: thanks and let me jump in. you are insured? caller: i get my health care from the administration. guest: the tort reform, that is an area where it seemed like it might be possible under obama to find some kind of common ground between republicans and democrats, because he was open to the idea of looking at malpractice laws.
it is something that never came about. it never came to fruition. instead, what was done in the affordable care act was to invest in some pilot programs that would look at different ways to handle malpractice cases, to keep out of courts. the congressional budget office found there would be savings as a result of malpractice reforms, so, this is an area that will probably be revisited at some point down the road. host: let's hear from doug on the line for uninsured in utah. caller: i am calling regarding your statement that health-care costs have dropped. my question is, i believe the reason why they're coming up with that cystic that health care has dropped is because they have cap to the economy snuffed
down to the point people do not have jobs and cannot afford health care and even if they do have health care, they cannot afford to go to the doctor because they do not have jobs to pay for any of it. therefore, but not propping the economy up, they are able to say health care costs have gone down when they really have not. it is because no one has the money to even go to the doctor because there are no jobs to pay for it. host: hang on the line if you can. i want to follow-up. go ahead for our guest. guest: they have not gone down. guest: they have not gone down. the government is not saying the costs have gone down. they are still rising. the change is that they are not rising as fast as they used to. they are going up more or less in line with the overall economy. what economists say is that it
makes it more affordable, as a nation, to cover our health care expenses. as to your rationale, your explanation, a lot of people believe that is what is going on. that the slowdown -- it is not a reduction, but a slowdown -- in health care costs, is the result of continuing effects of the economic recession. people out of work and people afraid of losing jobs, etc. what you are expressing is one of the major explanations experts out there offer. host: you are calling on the line for uninsured. are you working right now? caller: no, i got laid off. at my company, i have been there almost a year but not quite. it took me six months from the day i was in -- i was hired to get insured. once i got a job, it took me six
months to get it. then i was eligible. i had insurance for one month. they laid me off. their policy is if you are off work for more than 31 days, then, when you return to work, if you are not back within the 31 days, you have to wait another six more months before you are eligible for their employer paid insurance. host: anything about his story you want to speak to? guest: if you are still on the line, have you checked out any of the coverage now being offered through the affordable care act and what do you think about it if you had done that yet though -- that? host: i think he is gone. good morning, james. caller: good morning.
i have tried for years. host: what would you like to ask our guest? caller: i want to make a statement. let me lower my tv where i cannot hear it. host: this will work a lot better to all if you turn the sound down. caller: i was diagnosed, with a vicious disease. if you google it, it will come up. here is the deal. the v.a. took the report and destroyed it and tried to say that one day i woke up and started kicking. i have medicare now. i've already had my second year
operation. the doctor should have done an mri before i went and did the surgery. the memorial hospital here in oklahoma now, it was a couple years ago, 49. i always read my medical records. i wait three or four days and then go pick them up. he asked me to touch his hand. well, on this disease i've mentioned, i cannot pronounce it. there are a lot of l's and i's. it is a cartilage infection --
host: is there anything you want to ask our guest on that? caller: an mri of my neck and my neck. i had to come up with a co-pay. host: let me let you go there. you had a lot of time. anything there you wanted to speak to? guest: it sounds like you are in a difficult situation. i would call the 1-800-medicare number.
in most states, there are counseling services for medicare and fisheries. i would try to find out where those are and reach out to them and see if there's anybody who can give you some ideas as far as dealing with out-of-pocket cost, and just say, hang in there, sir. host: a tweet to our guest. is there a difference between cost and price -- can you explain what he is trying to get at? guest: i am not exactly sure what he is trying to get at is there is a difference. there has been a lot of attention recently to the list prices hospitals publish for
their services and the role those list prices play in driving the overall health care spending. the list prices, however, are not what medicare pays or what medicaid pays. according to the law, they are no longer supposed to be charged to the uninsured if you are a not-for-profit hospital. the list price is the one element, but i am not sure they would be the underlying driver of our health care spending. host: we have about 25 minutes left with our guest. he wrote this piece recently, the headline of which says -- guest: best story doubled
research that shows if you have a serious chronic service, something that acquires intensive treatment and costly jobs to manage, and you are a person of modest economic means, that you have to be really careful what kind of health insurance you pick under the affordable care act, because, it could leave you exposed to out- of-pocket costs, copayments and deductibles, that would amount to 20% of your income or something like that. it is not that you would be uninsured any longer, but you would be underinsured. maybe that is something we will start hearing more about as the new program takes effect in the country and people start using it.
there has been concern about that from the american cancer society and cancer action network, and from the lymphoma society, as well. host: let's go to georgia, where mark has been waiting on the line for folks who are uninsured. explain your situation first, if you could. caller: it is not much of a situation. i am fairly young and certainly healthy. i have not needed insurance. i'm only 31. at this particular point in my life, i have not become mortally wounded or ill. host: did you check out the affordable care act at all? caller: as of two days ago, i have become employed. prior to that, i have been technically unemployed. i have checked it out. it would take a very long time to explain the situation, but
suffice it to say, i was a living and serving chore for the previous 10 years. host: go ahead for our guest. caller: there is something that bugs me. it does not make sense to have insurance for everyone and call it affordable health care, when it does not do anything to address why health care is unaffordable to begin with. so my question is, does your guest actually know why health care is unaffordable? host: we had a similar tweet, a basic question. guest: i do not claim to know the answer to it. if you listen to the experts and
what they tell you is that it is a combination of factors. we live in a rich country. rich countries tend to spend more on health care. we spend much more than other rich countries. we are a society that believes in technology. we want the latest high-tech seizures. we want the latest drugs. we are a litigious society, so that, if we do not get ripped -- if others turn out wrong, we get blamed. there is a whole combination of factors that come together to drive it. also, the way that doctors and hospitals are paid, traditionally, it has been piecemeal. you get paid on the basis of how
much work you do, not the final outcome. what is happening now is that employers and the government are starting to shift the payment system away from piecemeal. how many tests, how many procedures, two, how many patients come out and how well did you, the doctor, the hospital, do certain basic things that are intended to keep the patient as healthy as possible? we have a combination of factors that drive these costs. nobody thought the affordable care act was the last word on this. maybe a year or two ago, a number of people who served in the obama administration came out with recommendations for another round of legislation that would focus more closely on detaining costs.
it will be an ongoing problem for our country, and particularly as more people enter retirement and join medicare. host: we have william on the line from texas. he is in short. -- insured. do you get your insurance from your employer? caller: caller: yes, i get medicare. i am 84. i was wondering if you can make a judgment about what part of the total health costs is a result of medicare to those eligible for it? guest: i would have to look that up for you but it is a significant part of our overall health care spending. the percentage is not at the tip of my tongue right now and i would hate to give you the wrong
answer. i would tell you it is a significant portion of overall health care spending because as we get older, we are more likely to get sick. therefore, it is a high-cost population. but perhaps there is something else you would like to ask? host: why do you bring it up and why do you asked the question? caller: it seems to me the fact some of us in the older ages are covered by the federal health program, that that has to be considered as a major part of the cost to the government. and that we are adding another one now with the affordable care act and it seems to me this is going to be a chime in this
amount of money to cover this particular population. host: thank you for calling. guest: the gentleman is right that it is a lot of money. by the same token, it is basically a decision our country has made to cover seniors and the disabled through medicare. an interesting point about medicare is that if you look at the cost per enrollee, that is actually staying pretty manageable. one reason the cost per enrollee is staying on the manageable side is the influx of younger baby boomers entering the program. when you just look at medicare by itself, for the next few years, at least until those
rumors start getting really much older, it is actually going to be helped on a per capita basis so to speak by the influx of the baby boomers. host: money, health jobs are actually going down as well. it posted losses for the first time in a decade. they pointed out jobs last year went down 3700. 2400 at hospitals, 1200 at physicians offices. what do you think is at work there? guest: that is interesting. it has been a source of job growth year end and year out through some of the roughest times of the economy. i think it is something you should probably watch for a couple of years and see whether it turns into some kind of long- term trend or not. it is probably too early to say
on the basis of one year. host: what do you make of all of the talk of the affordable care act? it is costing people a lot. what is the future of that part of the story? guest: i think it is something that we will see play out this year. the affordable care act has two arms. the expansion of medicaid is going to cost the beneficiary hardly anything, because medicaid is a safety net program for low-income people. the other part is geared towards the middle class, which you can buy to the marketplaces. it depends on what kind of plan you pick. and it depends on your own personal health care
circumstances and your income. so, it will probably be at least one year before we start to get a clear picture of whether people think the coverage is affordable or not. anecdotally, you hear both opinions expressed in now. host: elaine is calling on the uninsured line. caller: good morning. host: what is your situation? you do not have insurance, what is your story? caller: my son is 26 and was diagnosed with heart failure. he was in school but he had to quit because you really sick. we tried the obamacare. he cannot afford 120 five dollars per month, he is not working. they said that he is too young. i was wondering, is there something in the plans for
people that fall into that crack? where you do not make enough for the health care, but you are not low enough to get medicaid? you have to admit -- at least make $11,000 per year. guest: ok. host: thank you. cannot afford the contribution. guest: with medicated is important to keep in mind that it is a state option. where was she from? georgia, right? yes, georgia. if that is the case, that is one of the states that has not decided to expand medicaid at the moment. so, that is another wrinkle in all of this. 25 states and the district of columbia have decided to expand
medicaid. the other 25 have not. so, if you are a low income person and you really cannot afford the private coverage being offered in the exchanges or marketplaces, maybe you would qualify for medicaid if the state had expanded it, but if you cannot afford the coverage being offered in the exchanges, there are few options, basically, for you. although the government have said that people who fall into that category and fall through that crack will not face a tax penalty for remaining uninsured. host: our guest has been working for the ap since 2008. ricardo alonso-zaldivar is the health correspondent at the ap and has previously worked for the l.a. times and "the miami herald." he has covered a variety of washington beats. by twitter --
host: joanna, calling from ballwin, missouri, independent line. caller: hi. for starters, i would like to comment on the cost of health care and the fact that there is no doubt that the numbers in obamacare, the affordable care act, as you would like to call it, do not decrease the cost of health insurance. i have been health insurance agent for 20 years. i would also like to comment on the fact that -- yes, you are right, there is a huge administrative cost problem on the insurance side and on the hospital side. as well as the fact that i think that -- i do not know where this magical money tree that you have for paying for all this medicated you have been creating is coming from, you did not
offset it on the other side and we are a country that is already in an extraordinary amount of debt. you cannot just a dream it up. who is going to pay for the medicaid? other than, of course, us who go out and take risks and start businesses and create jobs? if it falls down, i can guarantee you that none of you want to compensate us, but when we succeed and are good at business and make good choices and get all this money, you want us to give it to everyone else because you did not want to take any responsibility for creating the problem. i think that you do not want to grow, you want to spoon feed, but the problem in the end is that you have baby boomers coming. you know that medicare is not solvent and has not been solvent. none of this has been solved. the numbers in the affordable care act are determined, at
best, at this point, to crash. you can let it wash out in the end. when you tell someone -- i want you to give me $1800 per year for deductible of $10,000, not only did you give them money every month, but when you were with the dr. you had to pay as well. and they did not have that before. before they saw their cost probably less than 18 hundred dollars per year altogether in those so-called junk plans. host: that was joanna. hear from our guest. guest: you are right, joanna. if you provide health insurance to more people, more people are going to go to the doctor, more people are going to be able -- be able to access the system, costs are going to go up. i do not think that anyone said costs would go down. they are going to go up.
but the question is, can the united states afford the increase in cost. that is going to be hotly debated over the next few years. the degree to which cost go up is going to be closely watched. now, within the legislation itself, the way that it was written, there were tax increases and spending cuts in government health care programs designed to pay for the legislation itself going to the first 10 years and beyond. so far, what we have heard from the congressional budget office is that the legislation continues to pay for itself. the spending cuts and tax increases would continue to pay for the coverage expansion. now, there are a lot of questions about that. suppose that some of these pay for's, as they call them, get rolled back. then the coverage expansion becomes more unaffordable. i think it is something that
will be closely watched for the next few years, to see what the end result will be. host: we have time for a couple of more calls with our guest. congress took of health care again last week. anything else on their docket that you would like to tell us about? we know they have taken dozens of related votes. caller: --guest: i think one of the stories that is not getting a lot of attention, which is very interesting on health care and congress, is that congress is actually looking for a bipartisan way to change the way the government days doctors through medicare. new no? medicare reimbursement for doctors has been a problem every year because there is a law on the books that would require big cuts and every year they have to cobble together a patch to get around that. well, you have now in the house
and in the senate legislation to change the payment system. the idea is to change the payment system to focus more on quality. so, while the headlines are about the continuing clash on the affordable care act, obamacare, whatever you want to call it, there is actually something else going on behind the scenes on medicare that is quite interesting. host: one viewer, via twitter -- host: just the opinion of one viewer, there. lawrenceville, georgia. caller: i was listening to you guys earlier. i picked up something over the weekend that was a panel discussing health care cost in general.
the observation was made several times that any additional affordability of health care that has come about in the last few years is consistent with the fact that the economy has taken a pretty hard it, beginning in 2008, 2009. reducing increases do not make it necessarily more affordable. an example that is not necessarily anecdotal, i went on the website and i put in a hypothetical two people, 62 years old, making a total family income of $100,000. they were not entitled the subsidies on as they would expect, but the bronze plan was $13,000 per year. i did not dig into it to see the deductibles or co-pays, but $1100 a month is not chump change for insurance. i think that kind of premium is going to be the downfall of the
program. thank you. guest: thank you for that example. it is on the side of the scale where you would not see a subsidy and it is on the older side of the age scale with the cost of the coverage being greater. what you are pointing out is something that is going to be a topic of conversation across the country this year. i think we are going to see consumers deliver a verdict, sooner or later, on whether they think this is affordable to them. for their budgets. one way that i always kind of thought, in the back of my head, was that this coverage is not free if you are a middle class person. you know, it really does depend on your circumstances. it is kind of less than the mortgage but more than a car note. it is something that people will
have to factor into their budgets. it will be a real consideration. host: on the in shoreline, hampton, virginia, roy, go ahead. -- insured line, virginia, hampton, roy, go ahead. caller: please extend lane this section of the -- please explain this section of the aca to me. the risk record or to ensure that we do not move -- lose money. i will listen off-line. host: why are you so interested in that one? caller: i read an editorial on it and i was interested. i have never heard it mentioned before. host: something you can speak to? guest: just in a general way. it is a very complicated provision, but there are a couple of provisions in that law that are designed to ease the
transition for insurance companies. the way that they would do that is they would move money around to insurance companies that sort of, i guess, get the short end of the stick and wind up with a lot of costly cases. the risk corridor is one of them. there is another one that is called reinsurance that would cover a certain proportion of the cost of the very, very expensive cases. what the caller has pointed out, you know, it is one of the more complicated parts of the law. something that we will probably start hearing about next year, really. the degree to which it works. basically, it is financial safeguards built into the law to cushion the impact on insurers of drawing too many high-cost
cases for a very sick population. host: our last call comes on the uninsured line, sailors will, kentucky. go ahead, johnny. caller: my question has to do the subsidies and low income. let's say that you get a subsidy for your payment, but what about your out-of-pocket costs and the duck bubbles? let's say that you have a $1500 deductible and and how to pack out-of-pocket cost, does the government help with that? in kentucky they expanded medicaid and right now people can make the minimum wage and still qualify, but if they raise the minimum wage up, people will lose the medicaid. host: two different points there. guest: two very interesting points. thank you, caller. on the subsidies for the out-of-
pocket costs, you have to look at your own particular situation. yes, in some cases if you are a person of modest income and you take a silver plan, you can get subsidies for your out-of-pocket costs as well. there is a quick way to approximate those, making a back of the envelope calculation, a handy tool on the internet called kaiser health reform subsidy calculator. you can go there and there is some very basic stuff about your families situation, and then you get an answer. i believe that you can now do that on healthcare.gov as well. i hope i have helped you with that answer. host: thank you to our guest, ricardo alonso-zaldivar, the associated press. we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you.
>> the house is in recess until about half an hour from now treat legislative work will get underway with three bills on the calendar, including when creating a peace corps memorial. any recorded votes will take based after six: 30. some news coming from the capitol today from the associated press -- california congressman george miller and longtime confidant of nancy will notnounced he seek reelection after four decades in congress. house minority nancy pelosi, released a statement on his departure which says capitol hill and california are filled with democrats and republicans alike who have enjoyed working with george miller and deeply respect him because of his dedication to the issues and excitement for the process are heiluted by the challenges faced trade also this news -- the supreme court is calling into question president obama's use of the constitution to make
temporary appointments over the objections of senate republicans. it is the first time the court has considered recess appointments and it is looking at three questions -- whether recess appointments can be made only during the once a year break in sessions of congress, whether the vacancy must occur while the senate is a way, and whether brief on the pro forma sessions of the senate can prevent the president from making recess appointments. the oral argument of the case will be available on friday. we'll have that on the c-span networks. again, we will go live to the u.s. house at 2 p.m. eastern. until then, a conversation on the way forward in afghanistan from today's "washington journal." host: our guest is the former -- we're here to talk about iraq
and afghanistan. omen forbe afghanistan. bring the two together. i will pregnant together and get your reaction. afghanistan is trying to picture their country and might want to cast an eye toward iraq. they have reassembled, brought in fresh fighters and unleash waves of deadly car bombings. last week, al qaeda claimed control of falluja where scores of americans lost her lives in house to house fighting in 2004. guest: we have to be careful about withdrawing our support for afghanistan too quickly. the afghan security forces are
now leading the provision of security across the country, but they still need our help. i think if we pulled out completely or too quickly, even cut off our assistance role, we could find ourselves with afghanistan sliding back into a more chaotic situation that would provide opportunities for al qaeda and the broader insurgency. the dynamics of what is going on in iraq are somewhat different. what has happened in iraq is the prime minister has taken an increasingly sectarian approach, for partr than working of a broader coalition when he a moreuctant, he chose secretary and path and try to start marginalizing them. he has tried to accuses political rivals of crime and withdrew support.
situationcreated a that he is now dealing with, which is a very alienated, marginalized situation in an bar , which has opened up fertile ground. the drivers of the situation are quite different. ust: our guest will be with for about 35 more. we have plenty of time to take your calls. if you want to post your tweets, you can do that in the phone numbers are the -- the phone numbers are at the bottom of your screen. three separate lines there. there was this headline recently -- karzai unlikely to meet the deadline on signing belongs -- the long-term security deal. can you give us the latest there? the u.s. needs a new
agreement with afghanistan in order to have a legal basis to continue to provide military advice, systems, and training beyond 2014 when the current mission ends. this would not be u.s. troops in a combat role. it would be an advise and assist role behind the scenes. reasons that are hard to understand, karzai has a fish -- has refused to sign the agreement. even though a loya jirga he convened with my five leaders from across afghan politics and societies encouraged him to sign the agreement. every presidential contender in afghanistan has come out in support of the agreement. it is hard to understand why he's not going forward. some has argued he does not want to be a lame-duck and last months of his presidency and once he signs the agreement, that is his final act of relevance. it is hard to know what is going
on in his mind, but it is obligating u.s. and nato planning for the post--2014 mission. that takes time. i think hethis lays, --risking and adding it making a harder to make good on the commitment which is in u.s. interests. let's shift back to iraq. there is a headline in "usa today" simply titled "losing iraqi. we want to show you a clip from senator john mccain who is on the cnn morning program yesterday and was asked about the significant uptick in violence in iraq. >> this president got out and we wanted out -- they would never say the number of troops they want to have there, so maliki decided to go his own way and we are now seeing dramatically
increased iranian influence in iraq. >> i went to see if i have this correctly -- watching what is going on in iraq now, you think there is absolutely nothing of -- nothing the u.s. can do that might help purge the al qaeda members out of iraq? you think that's a lost cause? >> i apologize if i gave you the wrong impression. first of all, no combat troops, obviously. let's get that out-of-the-way. we could provide them with assistance, logistics support, with apache helicopters. the same time, malik has got to have an an bar awakening. he's got to reach out and have national reconciliation. when we left and the iranian shia influence dramatically increased, and by the way, we could have kept a residual force there and anybody that tells you we could've is not telling you
the truth. i would suggest perhaps sending david petraeus and ambassador crocker back over there. malik he trusts them. try to get this thing sorted out because it's not just iraq. when you look at iraq and syria, you see and al qaeda enclave there. it is very dangerous to american national security, not to mention what is happening in syria, where again, the united states is disengaged. thank god for the saudi's, we are starting to see a reversal there, thank god. speak first about the detail they are going there for u.s. aid to be brought back there. what is your take? guest: we heard from the white house yesterday that the u.s. is doubling its double might outreach to malik he and its offers of assistance in terms of intelligence, technical support and military equipment to try to
bolster iraq's ability to deal with the threat from al qaeda. is pressingration melekeok and this issue. senator mccain is right in that the key issue is malik he and getting him to renew his outreach to the sunni community to pursue a no kidding reconciliation effort, which frankly, he hasn't done during his time in office. where i would differ with senator mccain is a little bit of history. president sought an agreement to keep some number of u.s. forces in iraq. i was very much a part of that process. but at the end of the day, i think maliki understood he had to take such an agreement to his policy -- to this parliament. he believed at the time his opponents would use that vote as
a no-confidence vote to try to take his government down, so he was not willing to go forward. no secretary of defense, no president should be willing to put american troops into a country without legal protections and immunity. it's just not a tenable position. here is one of the headlines to back up what our guest just said -- this is from the "washington post." we do have a fourth phone line for this segment. here is the other one for afghanistan and iraq veterans. we look forward to speaking to all of you. headline, "losing a rack" -- host: a broader view of what is
happening in iraq? iraq has had a terminus opportunity to move forward. in some ways as functioning security forces and so forth. the real problem has been prime minister maliki's pursuit of a very sectarian agenda, missing the opportunity to actually foster reconciliation, to build a multi-sectarian coalition and so forth. that's what he has to turn to now. that is what the u.s. is pressing him to do, whether he can hardly do so at this time is an open question. iran has been pushing him in other directions. what's happening on the border with syria and the unrest in syria is part of what is creating this opportunity. this is a now much more complicated and dangerous situation. i think he will have to work
very hard to recover. i think we need to do the right thing and try to help him move in that direction if he is willing to go there. host: our guest is the former administrator of politics. tom is our first call. omaha, nebraska. independent caller. caller: good morning. i'm afraid your guests will not be happy with what i am going to say. why in the world, unless we wanted karzai to reject the national security, to send a woman to present an ultimatum to the president of the islamic country?
guest: he's referring to susan rice recently making a trip to meet with president karzai and talk with him about the importance of finding bilateral security agreement. a couple of things. first of all, i do not believe investor rights did present any ultimatums. the premise of your question is faulty. my own experience working with a number of senior afghanistan officials is that they have no trouble healing with women in their official capacity. that is based on my own experience working with the minister of interior and defense and so forth. the bottom line is this an agreement is in the national interests of those countries. it is in our interest because we do not want them to become a
safe haven for al qaeda again. it is an afghan's interest because they understand while they have made tremendous progress building their own security forces, they still need the help of international community. if none are allowed after 2014, you will see dramatic withdrawal of aid and it will be tough for the afghan government to survive. host: we have timothy on the line, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the truth is this was started by george bush and those guys running the republican congress
now. i do not understand why they have to find money to extend unemployment benefits. about $15 trillion and all the stuff that comes with it. it is making no difference. no matter if we stay there or put more troops like mccain said, it don't matter what we do. this will come out the way it will come out, it will come out that way. we cannot go around and force other nations, no matter how big they are. we tried it in vietnam and we always make the same mistakes. "we need to forget about it and protect ourselves from these
terrorists." i'm getting ready to get off, but they have made a war and they made this thing of terror and that is the new way of them to get us to spend all of our money to do these things overseas. we spend more money than the rest of the world put together. our military do. it is ridiculous. host: thank you. let's hear from our guest. guest: there are two different questions. the intervention in afghanistan was in direct response to being attacked on 9/11 by al qaeda, which was basically finding safe haven in afghanistan and pakistan at the time. i think what we do now does
matter in afghanistan. if the u.s. and the national community can continue to provide a modest amount of support going forward, i think the afghans have a chance to secure their own country to prevent al qaeda from coming back and, to improve their situation. again, prevent the country from becoming a safe haven again for terrorists. the question of the cost of the iraq war, going into a major war without having a policy to pay for it, without figuring in the tremendous cost of that decision, i think that is something, a set of lessons for the history books, and something we should consider as we craft u.s. policy in the future.
host: we talk about afghanistan and iraq but we have a map here about how al qaeda continues to grow and they see it in the middle east. nigeria, libya, mali, syria, iraq, and afghanistan. pakistan, somalia. they point out in the wake of the death of bin laden, affiliates have acted increasingly independently. any thoughts on what you see there on that matt? -- map? guest: the united states has made tremendous progress, but the organization has morphed into these much more independent, still verlyn's regional affiliates in all the countries you mentioned. u.s. strategy needs to place an emphasis on helping to build the
capacity of those countries to deal with those groups locally and be effective in trying to limit their growth and access to safe haven and so forth. host: deer park, washington, independent caller. caller: you have -- you will not have a good time on the phone today because you talk a lot and say nothing. three points. immediately ban all in contractor theaters, theater contractors. immediately initiate a draft that covers everybody. immediately issue war taxes to pay for this nonsense. you have been playing this game, meet the new boss, same as the old boss, barack obama versus alaska. nothing changes but your problem is people are waking up to you. the pain level here is getting high enough and the media cannot
cover it so you come on and blab for 20 minutes and it is the same noise. what is our mission? will we be everyplace a couple of muslims get into a fist fight? help me out with this one. guest: hard to know where to begin on that one. i am not in the administration anymore. second of all, i am not advocating u.s. boots on the ground wherever there are disagreements with the islamic community. i am advocating for a very modest continued u.s. presence in afghanistan, not in a combat role, but to support the afghan national security forces in completing their training so they can stand on their own and secure their country on their own, and so forth. in terms of banning contractors, i think we need to do a careful scrub of the appropriate and inappropriate rules of
contractors on the battlefield. we have probably gone too far relying on private security companies and the like as opposed to our military forces. with regard to a draft, i think it is hard to find anyone in today's volunteer force that believes going toward the draft at this point would not undermine the superb quality of the all volunteer force. the fact that we have a truly professional force, a force able to deal with a much more comp lex task of war fighting today, i agree that we always want to make sure we have a connection to the american people, that the american people support the missions we undertake, but i do not think a draft is the right answer at this point. host: jeremy, democratic caller. caller: good morning.
i would like the interviewee there to comment on the interesting aspect, the difficulties we have. you made reference to the lessons of history. we are dealing with cultures that there are. what about the lack of veracity in statements they make an statements and contrary actions they have taken. how do we deal with countries that have not followed through and do what they say they will do? how can we have any kind of good faith relationship with any countries like those? i will just take the comments off the air. thank you. guest: you raise an important point. when you negotiate with leaders of a country, you better take the time to understand how they
approach negotiation and what cultural perceptions and traditions are, etc.. if we think people will sit across the table and think and speak the way we do, we can get ourselves into trouble. the good news is, what i have seen is when we have gone into negotiations with other countries, our state department representatives have, as far as i've seen, done their homework to understand cultural factors. at the end of the day, when we make agreements with countries, we have to ensure there are verification and accountability measures in place to make sure we can hold him accountable to whatever they do agree to. host: a tweet for our guest. james asked any chance the rebels are using guns acquired from syrian's we are arming? guest: i think we cannot be confident of where their source of weaponry is coming from but
what i can say is i think u.s. efforts to arm more moderate rebel groups in syria has come with a number of steps or measures to try to ensure those measures do not fall into the wrong hands, the hands of al qaeda. whether that has been 100% foolproof, i do not think anyone can say. the groups you are seeing pop up in iraq are not the ones we are supporting and arming in syria. >> a couple of headlines. abc news. a bomb kills two in afghanistan. this happened sunday. if you look at the front page of the new york times this morning, you will see the gilded head of a buddhist statue being
displayed inside a case at the national museum of afghanistan. they are saving the relics now destroyed by the taliban, 300. the taliban have been painstakingly reassembled. waiting for their turn for restoration. interesting piece in the new york times. james is calling from arkansas. independent. good morning. caller: this is a bit off-topic. there is something the american people are not aware of. c-span is never talked about it and i would love for them to have a program about this.
it is about blue water sailors and soldiers ann-marie and stationed offshore. denied any disability benefit because they did not have a boot on the graph -- ground. this was passed by congress. i spoke with my senator. i spoke with my congressman. they are both republicans. the senator told me something interesting. he said, we are aware of this problem but we cannot afford it. we cannot afford to reimburse these people. i was sickened. my congressman telling me that. my brother was on the uss intrepid, 800 feet offshore. he died of prostate cancer. the doctor recognized and stated
in his military medical records that he died of that. because he did not have a boot on the ground, he was denied his disability. this is atrocious. you talk about veterans that are forgotten. these veterans are forgotten. c-span, please do a program about this atrocity that the government had put on the veterans. >> we will leave this segment here for live coverage of the u.s. house. you can see this or any other c- span online at c-span.org. the house in just a moment. we expect the opening prayer and pledge and pledge and short speeches. members are expected to recess again to start legislative work at 5:00 eastern. three builds on the calendar, including one that would approve a peace corps commemorative
memorial. now, live to thousand floor on c-span. let us play -- pray. dear god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your special blessing upon the members of this people's house. they face difficult decisions in difficult times with many forces and interests demanding their attention. in these days, give wisdom to all the members that they might execute their responsibilities to the benefit of all americans, especially those who work for less than a living wage and struggle to make ends meet and those who would work but are unable to find sustainable employment. bless them, o god, and be with them and with us all this day and every day to come. may all that is done